By Carlos Miller
Nathan Alston had a few minutes to kill as he sat in a parked car on a side of a street waiting for his wife in downtown Amherst, NY. So he pulled out his Nikon D300 and started taking photos of some buildings in front of him.
It didn’t take long before three FBI Agents harassed him, according to his story, which he posted on DP Review.
One of them introduced himself, as he stuck his ID through the passenger window, and asked what my business was. He explained that I had been captured, on camera, taking pictures of their buildings. I explained that I wasn’t aware of that, and told them that I was just a serious amateur photographer who was only trying to get a better handle on exposures.
They pointed out that one of the buildings I was shooting in the direction of, was their main building. It was only after he mentioned this that I was able to see – on better inspection – their FBI logo on said building. Now, this building was better than a half-block away, and their logo was almost totally obstructed by some trees.
Alston said the Feds were worried because he had such a “professional grade camera” – as if perhaps it doubled as a rocker launcher or something.
I haven’t read through the six pages of comments on the DP Review thread but from a few comments, it appears that some people are taking the whole “Thank God they’re protecting us from the terrorists” approach.
Alston, who was misinformed before the incident, is even more misinformed now.
I live in Amherst, NY, and I do believe that I had previously heard something about how photographing such buildings were not permitted. That is why I parked a distance away from the IRS building (which is where my wife was visiting), and shot in the opposite direction. The thing with me is that I didn’t KNOW I was shooting federal installations.
So obviously Alston now believes that photography is a crime.
Via Thomas Hawk.
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar. To keep updated on the latest articles, join my networks at Facebook, Twitter and Friendfeed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
36 responses so far ↓
1 Bueller // Mar 22, 2009 at 9:33 AM
There’s a bunch of people in the thread I’ve linked to that feel the same way about pictures from a similar circumstance.
2 jones // Mar 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Imagine that, the FBI seeing a suspicious yet law abiding citizen. They talk to him, he doesn’t get defensive and go spouting off about being harassed. He doesn’t get arrested, he has a nice conversation with one of the agents who turns out to be an amateur photographer himself. Shame on you Alston for not taking this opportunity to make a big deal out of nothing. To think you could be sitting in jail right now if you played your cards right.
3 Carlos Miller // Mar 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Yes, Jones, a job well done by our tax-funded federal law enforcement agents.
The photographer went away thinking it was illegal to photograph federal buildings and the feds proved they can throw their weight around even if there was no probable cause.
A victory for law enforcement.
4 jones // Mar 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
You don’t need probable cause to talk to people
5 Carlos Miller // Mar 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I think it’s clear they approached only because they found him “suspicious.”
6 jones // Mar 22, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Sounds like a good reason to me but it really doesn’t matter why they approached him because you don’t need a reason to approach people and talk to them.
7 jones // Mar 22, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Carlos writes – It didn’t take long before three FBI Agents harassed him, according to his story, which he posted on DP Review.
Here is what Nathan posted on DP Review – The true fact of the matter is that I absolutely was NOT harassed, and I apologize for my posting having given rise to (it seems) some wrong interpretations. Discontentment, anger, or feelings of being unjustly questioned about my actions, were not colors of my posting.
LOL – Way to give yourself credibility, here is a tip, if your going to lie don’t post a link that exposes that lie. Thanks for the chuckle…..
8 Carlos Miller // Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Fuck you, Jones.
They were harassing him because he was not breaking the law, yet they made him think he was breaking the law.
If I’m sitting in the car minding my own business, doing something that I have every legal right to do and a couple of feds stop by and stick their badge in my face and ask me what my business is, then I am being harassed.
That shit happens in Cuba and China. It’s not supposed to happen here. This is not a police state, as much as you would like it to be.
The guy doesn’t think he was being harassed because he is convinced he was breaking the law and they let him get away with it.
The real liars are those feds who harassed him.
If I was pulled over for running a red light and the cop let me go with a warning, I would be appreciative also.
9 Scott Chamness // Mar 23, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Whew, heated.
It seems to me that the agents had a perfect right to question him, but the photographer also had the perfect right to not answer any questions he didn’t want too. It seems that for the most part they were pretty polite to each other.
10 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Carlos, what’s the difference between a photographer taking pictures of the police and the police walking up to somebody on the street and questioning them. Both acts are legal so how do you consider one a first amendment right and the other harassment.
Just when do you think it’s ok for the police to approach somebody and talk to them?
11 Joel // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM
When they have suspicion or probable cause, Jones. So, what in the reports indicates the existence of either?
12 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
And how do they decide what is suspicious, give me an example of suspicious……
13 Joel Lawson // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Photographing a publicly visible building, from public property, should not in and of itself rise to the level of suspicion or probable cause for intervention.
But my opinion doesn’t matter, nor does yours. The law is what matters. And this is all well-traveled ground, since Terry v. Ohio, upon which the FBI are well trained.
Jones, you continue to wallow in the realm of opinion and conjecture, avoiding a discourse based upon the law. A few primers for you:
Text of Terry v. Ohio
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1
Good layman’s article on Terry Stops:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html
Wiki entry on Terry v. Ohio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Read those, then come back and tell us how photographing a building that is publicly visible, from public property, arises to suspicion and probably cause. And, more specifically, tell us how the factor of owning a professional-looking camera can be similarly construed.J
14 Carlos Miller // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Jones,
They lied to him.
Those three guys issued an apology (a few times) for their questionings, and let me know that they really weren’t trying to hardball me. It was just that – under the climate of conditions, in this country today – photographing such installations was not permitted.
15 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Again, Just when do you think it’s ok for the police to approach somebody and talk to them?
16 Carlos Miller // Mar 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Wow, you make it seem as if these poor feds just wanted to be buddies with the photographer rather than intimidate him into believing he was not allowed to take photos.
Police are allowed to approach people and talk to them. I guess they are even allowed to lie to them.
After all, they’re pretty much allowed to arrest people at will.
But it just goes to show you that you can’t expect cops to enforce the actual laws in the books. No, they’ll enforce the laws that they believe should be in the books.
17 Duane Kerzic // Mar 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I have to agree with Jones, police, FBI, other goverment agents can talk to anyone they want as citizens. It’s when they try to use the powers of goverment to force you to talk that they run into problems. As long as they realize we don’t have to talk to them if we don’t want to I don’t have a problem.
Where I disagree with Jones is that taking photos of buildings no matter how you do it is not a suspicious activity. There is nothing supicious about taking photos. This guy was approached because he was taking photos which is the part that’s bull.
They wasted our time and our money taking to this guy when they had much more important things to do.
18 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Duane, since nobody else can give me an example of a suspicious person maybe you can.
Some would feel that a person taking pictures of an FBI building is suspicious, you obviously do not. I think I would have done just what those agents did.
19 Carlos Miller // Mar 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Please explain how and why it is suspicious to photograph a federal building, Jones.
20 Joel Lawson // Mar 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Better yet, Jones, actually rely upon the law in articulating the reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Relying on anything else, such as personal opinion or conjecture, is easy for a civilian. These weren’t grocers or passers by, these were agents of law enforcement, subject to operating within the law.
So, please rely upon the law in explaining grounds for reasonable suspicion and probable cause for a Terry Stop.
21 Rizzin // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Suspicious person = Someone LEO’s have REASON to believe has or is about to commit a crime.
So what crime was or was about to be committed in public view with a camera jones?
A camera pointed at architecture does NOT automatically make a person suspicious. How many of those arrests that LE likes to tout as being terrorist activities stopped turned up surveillance pictures taken by the accused terrorists? My information tells me approaching zero, but I dont have access to court records to know what was checked in as evidence so I can only guess at such taking the word of others who have a good reason to know what their are talking about. If this information is true then “checking on suspicious photographers” is nothing but a waste of time and money.
22 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Joel, I don’t see anywhere in the article where he was stopped. He was sitting in a parked car waiting for his wife. They didn’t pull him over and he never asked if he was free to go. They simply walked up to him and started asking him questions which he did not have to answer. The police have the same rights as a civilian. They can walk up to anybody they want in a public place and talk to them. If Nathan tried to leave and they prevented that then they would need some justification but just to walk up to him and talk is perfectly legal.
If a cop walks up to somebody on the street, without reason, just at random and says do you have any illegal drugs on you and the guy says yes and shows him a bag of crack would that make it an illegal arrest. No it wouldn’t because the police can do anything a private citizen can do. If the guy refuses to answer and walks away and then is detained then there would be a problem.
BTW Joel you didn’t answer my question what does a suspicious person look like?
23 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Rizzin, thanks for telling me what a suspicious person is, now what do they look like?
24 SwannStObserver // Mar 23, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Jones: You clearly didn’t care to read Terry v. Ohio. Until you do, this conversation isn’t going anywhere, and I certainly won’t enter the illogic of stating what a “suspicious person look[s] like.” They don’t “look” like anything, rather they act in a manner that rises to reasonable suspicion, with probable cause to Terry Stop them.
If the enforcement personnel in this instance was not acting in an investigative manner, he would not have gone as far as to provide, initially misleadingly so, rationale for investigating the behavior of the civilian, which was, again, completely within the law, and in no manner gave rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
25 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Swann, and what the agents did was completely within the law. I’m not saying they weren’t investigating him, I’m saying they were investigating him within the law. Are you saying what the agents did was illegal?
26 Rizzin // Mar 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM
As Swann said, its not about how a person LOOKS, its about what what they are doing. And so what is it that pointing a camera at ANYTHING in full open view of the public looks like it even MIGHT be criminal?
Now if the subject of the picture is NOT in full open view of the public then we have a potential problem.
So lets clarify my earlier answer on “suspicious person”
There is no such thing as a “suspicious person”, only “suspicious activity by a person” because anybody can DO something which is suspicious which then creates PC or RAS for an investigation.
Photography of a public building from a public location does not qualify.
27 Duane Kerzic // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Actually the government and the police acting under the color of their uniform don’t have any rights. The government and the government’s agents have powers. So when an agent of the government is asking you an official question the question is does he have the power to ask it now does he have the right. The agent in the conduct of official duties doesn’t have any rights at all. This is why the police are always trying to make us into criminals. Because until they can brand us as a criminal of some ilk they don’t have any power over us.
I’m sorry Jones in conduct of your official duties you don’t have any rights at all. Deal with it.
What would be suspicious behaviour because there isn’t a suspicious look. Now that is a good question. After all we have an interest in living in as crime free a society as possible. I do think that the destruction of the cities of the United States has done a great deal increase the paranoia we have today. It’s also done a great deal to increase crime.
The things that destroyed the cites aren’t the crime we think of in the inner cities. What destroyed them is the interstate highway system which caused the failure of most of the mass transit systems. Basically all the planning ideals of Robert Moses.
Which has less murders? A town of 100 people that has a murder every 20 years? A city of of million people that has 200 murders a year? The city with 200 murders a year has less crime even though it doesn’t seem like it. The town has a murder for ever 2000 person years. The city has a murder for every 5000 person years. Even in the worst of cites in the USA you are much less likely to be murdered then in most of the suburbs.
Because we don’t live close together anymore in this country it seems that whenever we encounter others we think they are suspicious.
While I don’t think that taking a photo is in any way a suspicious activity what is something that would be. Well someone carrying a gasoline can in one hand and lighter in the other walking up to a building could be suspicious. An unknown car pulling up to your neighbors house when they aren’t home, someone gets out and goes to your neighbors backyard and the car leaves. A guy standing on a street corner that can be seen collecting money from people that walk by and handing them glassine envelopes or other vials.
But taking photographs. I don’t think so, it don’t matter what they are taking photos of either.
28 Duane Kerzic // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I meant to tell about another encounter I had a couple of days ago. I got a call from a friend that the Northeast Corridor Line (the busiest commuter line in the country) was stopped and no trains were moving. It turns out that a NJ Transit Train caught the overhead wire and tore it down. So I went to take photos, http://photos.duanek.name/gallery/7627173_yKZAa/1/493162502_9XqJ3
I get asked by a NJT officer what I’m a doing and who am I with. I say taking photos and myself. So then I get the let me see your ID my supervisor wants to know who you are. I refused to show her my ID and said I don’t care what your supervisor wants, I’m standing on public property, the street, I’m not in the railroad right of way and last time I checked photography was legal. She starts with the suspicious activity crap. I say, just what is suspicious about taking a photo of a newsworth event. Then I asked, “Am I being detained?”, “Am I free to go?” I was told I was standing there of my own free will. I said thank you have a nice evening, be safe and left when I was done with my photos.
This stuff all reads the same way. It’s like these guys all go to the same school. Just change the names and the place where it happened. Outcome is always the same. Cops approach photographer. Cops hassle photographer. Cops make fun of photographer. Cops find a stupid reason to arrest photographer. Photographer get attorney. Is found innocent of any crime. Sues police. Wins money and stops talking about what happened.
Who is the dumb one here? Hasn’t this happened enough times that the cops would get a clue and stop bothering people taking photos.
29 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Duane – I’m sorry Jones in conduct of your official duties you don’t have any rights at all. Deal with it.
If I had a dollar for every time somebody told me I had no right to do what I was doing…….
Then I asked, “Am I being detained?”, “Am I free to go?” I was told I was standing there of my own free will. I said thank you have a nice evening, be safe and left when I was done with my photos.
So what’s your problem with what she did. You have the right to stand on a public sidewalk and take pictures. She has the right to stand on that same public sidewalk and ask questions. If you don’t want to answer that is your choice. She didn’t do anything wrong, she didn’t invade your privacy, she didn’t deprive you of any constitutional rights. Did she bug you, maybe, just like you bugged her by taking the pictures, but neither one of you broke the law. Just because you have a camera doesn’t mean your entitled to more privacy then anybody else.
Outcome is always the same. Cops approach photographer. Cops hassle photographer. Cops make fun of photographer. Cops find a stupid reason to arrest photographer. Photographer get attorney. Is found innocent of any crime. Sues police. Wins money and stops talking about what happened.
Obviously your not familiar with Carlos’ case.
30 Duane Kerzic // Mar 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Jones, you don’t have any rights as a police officer other then those which ever citizen has. Take the time to read the constitution. When you are acting as a police officer you are acting as part of the government, the government does not have any rights. For instance the government has the power to collect taxes but not the right. There is never in any laws, rules, regulations, statues anyplace in the United States any “rights” granted to any police, it would be unconstitutional. There are however “powers” granted to police. These are commonly called police powers. As a police officer you can use those powers in certain circumstances to do things. The question is never do you have a right to do whatever but do you have the power to do it.
I didn’t say I had a problem with how she acted in the end. I implied she bugged me, a little but that’s all. I don’t have a problem with a little bugging. That one was at a tipping point, it tipped the right way. Probably because it was a female cop and they don’t tend to have an issue about the size of their penis. If the officer felt they had an inferior penis they probably would have tried to arrest me for something to prove that they didn’t have a tiny one. The other point I was making is that I wasn’t doing anything suspicious. I was doing something normal in that circumstance, taking a photo of a train that was newsworthy. Now if the officer approached me with the intent of offering me better access that would have been a different story.
Carlos’ case hasn’t terminated yet. It’s still in play. We are on the step where he is being found innocent.
31 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 9:42 PM
I’m sorry Jones in conduct of your official duties you don’t have any rights at all. Deal with it.
or
Jones, you don’t have any rights as a police officer other then those which ever citizen has.
So do I have no rights or just those that every citizen has, make up your mind.
Ok instead of referring to the rights of a police officer I will refer to the power of a police officer, will this make you happy.
I see you have sunk to the “penis” lines, when will I get the pleasure of the “you were beat up in high school”. I have never heard those from somebody in the back of my car. Duane let’s keep this mature ok.
Duane could you answer my question. Does the fact that you carry a camera and call yourself a photographer entitle you to more privacy then every other citizen?
Carlos’ case hasn’t terminated yet. It’s still in play. We are on the step where he is being found innocent.
A jury heard all the evidence and found that he broke the law and therefore convicted him of his crime. So until it is reversed he is guilty.
32 jones // Mar 23, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Duane, here is a paragraph taken from the photographers bill of rights
On occasion, law enforcement officers
may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the RIGHT to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However,
they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs
from other locations
Looks like somebody forgot to proofread your bill of rights.
33 Duane Kerzic // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Yes he did make a mistake. They have the POWER to keep you away. I’m very aware of what those powers are for the most part. A power and a right while somewhat the same are also very different.
I wasn’t referring to you with the penis line. I like to believe that most cops are mature reasonable people, which that particular NJT Officer turned out to be but which I did not know at first. When I meet these officers, which is most of the time, I tend to call the shift supervisor, chief or whoever I can get and compliment them in some way. Imagine that, I’ve done that more times than I’ve complained.
One other thing. I also tend to say hello to officers when I pass them. I believe that officers need to spend more time outside of the patrol cars. It’s good for them and it’s good for the people.
But there are also lots of officers that are in the uniform to get respect for whatever reason. Perhaps they were beat up in high school, maybe they have a tiny dick. I don’t know what it is, maybe they are just psychopaths or narcissists. Pick your favorite. You can generally tell these guys by how they get out of the car. The attitude arrives before they do.
They tend to be argumentative, unhappy and impossible to deal with on any reasonable level. They try to take what you say and twist it into something that it’s not. We have all met some of those folks.
Jones I know when I did something wrong and when I didn’t. I’m aware of when I choose to break the rules for whatever reason. Now I’m not talking about major things here. I’m talking about like I’m driving my car and I decide to use the shoulder to get to the exit. It’s wrong, I know it. If I get pulled over I know I deserved it. I don’t argue, I don’t call the cop a jerk. He’s doing his job. I made my choice. I do my best to give the guy a reason to let me go without getting out the summons pad.
But when I’m carrying my camera around in public I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not doing anything suspicious. That’s what I’m talking about. The reasonable mature cops are not the ones that pushing on photographers and finding excuses to arrest them just because they happen to be taking photos.
34 NYCPhotorights // Mar 24, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Jones, getting back to the original story.
Note the Photographer’s comment
” All in all, though, I learned a valuable lesson. We photographers have to be VERY careful about WHERE we are shooting. I harbor no ill feelings against the FBI, about that, for they were just doing their job. But I will do all I can to insure that I do not present myself to such a position again”
Some photographers who experience these encounters shy away from taking the pictures they want to take out of fear of another encounter. This is precisely what we find unacceptable. If a building is in public view then it is fair game to being photographed. Being questioned by authorities has the chilling effect of restricting these rights under the law as we have seen this photographer express in his comments.
FBI Agents Also LIED About the Law
In a subsequent post the photographer also clarified that the FBI agents specifically told him that it is illegal to photograph federal buildings. If in fact they did that, which we have no reason to believe they didn’t since it follows typical law enforcement pattern of behavior that we have seen in similar encounters, then they are outright LIARS. There are NO federal laws that prohibit photography of federal buildings other than certain military installations.
I a later post this the photographer clarifies the following:
> Did they say it was forbidden to take photos of their building? Or
> are you assuming that?
No assumption on my part, for they said it was against the law to photograph the federal buildings.
What I find unacceptable is the LYING and telling people to stop taking pictures when and where they legally can. Questioning is ok – LYING ISN’T!!!
35 Duane Kerzic // Mar 24, 2009 at 10:12 AM
NYCPhotorights,
Thank you for refocusing us. This harassment and questioning serves as a prior restraint to the taking of the photographs. The courts have consistently found that this prior restraint is unconstitutional.
While we aren’t allowed to lie to officials, it’s called several different things, they are free to lie to us. I’ve always thought this was BS. The FBI guys that told the photog that it was against the law should be at minimum disciplined for what they did.
36 ballroom dancing instructional dvd // May 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Its always advantageous to learn ideas in the event that you share for blog posting. Because We simply started posting comments for weblog and facing issue associated with associated with rejections. I think your own suggestion would be useful for me. We a person know within the event that it’s work for me too.
Leave a Comment